President
Bushs call for increased federal funding of school drug testing programs
has already reignited debate over the efficacy and ethics of intrusive remedies
for a country at war with drugs. Given the easy availability of illegal substances,
and their widespread use by teens, its a debate worth watching.

Random
drug testing in schools began with student athletes and a "pay to play"
philosophy holding that participation in sports is a privilege extended on
the condition of abstinence from substance use. In a practice upheld by the
US Supreme Court, this privilege principle quickly migrated to other competitive
activities, from cheering to chess. And now, in its latest iteration, drug
testing is being applied more broadly to students enrolled in some private
and parochial schools.

The
current debate, anchored on one side by conservatives and on the other by
civil libertarians, threads age-old arguments of privacy with newfangled applications
of technology poised to detect and designed to deter. In the middle remain
a vast number of "undecideds" and the fundamental question of effectiveness.
And here the data conflict.

University
of Michigan researchers found virtually identical rates of drug use in the
schools that have drug testing and the schools that do not (although a study
author concedes that one "could design a drug testing program that
could deter drug use").

A
Ball State University/Indiana University researcher reported that 73% of
Indiana high school principals with random drug testing programs in their
schools reported a decrease in drug usage (compared to a period without
such a program) among students subject to the policy.

Supporters
of random drug testing argue both the ethics (if we expect students to study
and test them to find out, cant we also expect them to remain drug-free
and test them to make sure?) and the outcomes (the Office of National Drug
Control Policy cites the results of drug testing programs in Oregon and New
Jersey as proof positive that they work). They also note the positive role
that testing can play by giving young people "an out," blunting
negative peer pressure with the threat of being caught. Not enforcement but,
rather, reinforcement.

Detractors,
on the other hand, claim that such programs are ineffective as deterrents
and fly in the face of civics classes on the appropriate balance between authority
and individual rights.

In
Making Sense of Student Drug Testing, Why Educators are Saying No,
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Drug Policy Alliance maintain
that not only is testing ineffective in deterring young people from using
drugs, it also can undermine relationships of trust between adults and children.
While that could be true, Teens Today research from SADD and Liberty
Mutual Group suggests that the undermining may already be well underway: while
95% of parents say they trust their teens in making decisions about drugs,
only 28% of teens report being completely honest with parents on the issue.
And that says nothing of the often elaborate steps teens will take to conceal,
not just lie about, their drug use.

In
more than a few families, evasion blends with obfuscation  commencing
a high-stakes game of Cat and Mouse that pits parents against teens and cripples
the very trust and truth on which those relationships are based.

What
seems to be lost in this debate is the perspective of those with the most
at stake: the students themselves. Encouragingly, most teens (70%) say they
are concerned about drug use. Yet, understandably, many see drug testing as
a violation, not so much of civil liberties as much as of trust  at
least absent some evidence of wrongdoing. They also seem to doubt its saliency
as a deterrent, even when applied by Mom or Dad. In one Teens Today study,
only 8% of students said that testing by parents would be effective in keeping
them away from drugs, while 93% indicated that other parental measures would
be effective.

The
good news in all of this is that young people recognize the dangers of drug
use and seem to share adults urgency in finding answers that keep teens
safe. The better news is a solution thats been right in front of us
all along: parents who talk regularly with their children about drugs.

According
to Teens Today, adolescents in grades 6-12 say that parents are their
biggest influence not to use drugs. And the methods they report as most effective
are, perhaps, the simplest: discuss the dangers and explain the expectations.
Indeed, teens who have open and honest communication with their parents are
more likely to avoid drugs, to try to live up to their parents expectations
regarding drug use, and to say that their parents methods of keeping
them away from drugs are effective. These teens also report that they are
less likely to use drugs when their parents make clear that such behavior
wont be tolerated.

Whatever
the outcome of the spirited public discourse over random drug testing in schools,
a surer bet may be some not-so-random drug prevention at home. Open communication
and clear expectations are already proven deterrents to drug use among teens
 just ask them. So too is good old-fashioned vigilance. After all, while
the cats away

Stephen
Wallace, national chairman and chief executive officer of SADD, Inc., has
broad experience as a school psychologist and adolescent counselor. SADD sponsors
school-based education and prevention programs nationwide and makes available
at no charge the SADD Contract for Life and the Opening Lifesaving
Lines brochure, both designed to facilitate effective parent-child communication.
Toll-free: 877-SADD-INC For more information on the SADD/Liberty Mutual
Teens Today research, visit
www.saddonline.com or
www.libertymutualinsurance.com.